Iowa Johnson County Sheriff: 20 percent of 2011 gun permits go to those with criminal records

[RamboLiberal]

One in five people permitted to carry guns in Johnson County since a new shall carry law went into effect in January have criminal records, Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said Wednesday.

One man approved in March was arrested for criminal mischief in 1994, drunken driving in 1998, unauthorized use of a vehicle in 2000, possession of controlled substance in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007, possession of a stolen firearm in 2007 and telephone harassment in 2010, Pulkrabek said.

“My biggest beef is they took all the discretion away from the sheriffs under the premise of wanting more law-abiding citizens to get permits, but what they’ve done is allowed more people who are criminal, non-law-abiding citizen to carry guns,” Pulkrabek said. “Clearly, this is someone who is not law abiding and clearly not someone I believe should have a gun permit.”

Johnson County issued 1,295 permits in the first four months of 2011 compared to 552 in all of 2010, the sheriff told members of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, which was conducting an annual site visit of the sheriff’s office on Thursday. Of those who have received permits this year, 250 have a criminal record, Pulkrabek said.

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20110601/NEWS01/110601006/Sheriff-20-percent-2011-gun-permits-go-those-criminal-records?odyssey=nav%7Chead

[damntexdem]

1. Idiotic law leads to real problems for law enforcement, and for public safety.

My, who could have foreseen it?

[eqfan592]

12. So are you saying now...

...that you support people being treated as convicted felons even though they were never actually convicted??

No, me thinks the law is working just fine and that there's nothing idiotic about it.

[slackmaster]

16. The article doesn't say that Sheriff Lonny has an actual problem, real or otherwise

Only that he has a "beef."

[right2bfree]

53. Oh no one of course. The NRA wins again, while people die in the streets.

[provis99]

2. if guns are guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment,

I don't see how the state has any right to take away their guns, any more than they have a right to take away their freedom of speech.

[sharesunited]

3. Just need to combat the misnomer that they are somehow guaranteed.

Once Scalia and Thomas have left the bench, this can be revisited and corrected.

[Blown330]

4. Another Anti's...

...pipe dream. Sorry, that isn't going to happen. Maybe that Sheriff should try making the charges stick and not letting felony-level charges get dropped or lessened. Seems he should be complaining to the DA's office.

[YllwFvr]

43. Sounds like the griping of many LEOs nationwide

Pile up the arrests and watch them get pled away or dropped. Part of the job and part of the system. Cant let it make a difference in how you do the job.

[Hangingon]

51. Iowa law does provide for a review.

The Sheriff is upset because someone had a problems several years ago. Law says in last 2 years. Too bad he lost some of his godly powers.

724.8 Persons eligible for permit to carry weapons.
No professional or nonprofessional permit to carry weapons shall be issued to a person who is
subject to any of the following:
1. Is less than eighteen years of age for a professional permit or less than twenty-one years of
age for a nonprofessional permit.
2. Is addicted to the use of alcohol.

3. Probable cause exists to believe, based upon documented specific actions of the person, where
at least one of the actions occurred within two years immediately preceding the date of the
permit application, that the person is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or in such other manner
as would endanger the person's self or others.

4. Is subject to the provisions of section 724.26
5. Has, within the previous three years, been convicted of any serious or aggravated
misdemeanor defined in chapter 708, not involving the use of a firearm or explosive.
6. Is prohibited by federal law from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm.
724.9 Firearm training program.
1. An

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Scalia and Thomas are not involved.

If you want to overthrow the country, why wait?

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Because he isn't armed, lol

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. Sounds like a personal problem to me. n/t

[rl6214]

23. Won't be an issue after the next SC decision reinforces Heller

and wipes out the chitcago gun laws

[right2bfree]

63. Exactly so !

[Abq_Sarah]

73. The beauty of our form of government

Is that our rights are protected by and from the government. We don't have to depend on the whims of whatever party is in control. Don't you agree that's a good thing?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

17. Nobody on this board takes the position that the right to keep and bear arms can't be curtailed...

...through due processs of law.

I don't see how the state has any right to take away their guns, any more than they have a right to take away their freedom of speech.

States don't have rights. States have powers. People have rights.

[jpak]

26. I have a right to not live with criminals with concealed weapons permits

yup

[Euromutt]

30. How do you establish who is a "criminal"?

See, we have this thing called the Fifth Amendment, that says that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. That means the executive branch of government doesn't get to decide you're a "criminal" based on having been arrested any number of times, or because you're black, Hispanic, Jewish, an atheist, left-wing, or any combination thereof; you have to have been convicted by a court of law before the state can treat you as a criminal. (Or, at least, that's the idea.)

[baldguy]

42. Criminal mischief in 1994, drunken driving in 1998, unauthorized use of a vehicle in 2000...,

...possession of controlled substance in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007, possession of a stolen firearm in 2007 and telephone harassment in 2010. That's a start.

In many states, if you're convicted of a felony you lose to right to vote. Why should you be able to get a gun? Because the NRA, the GOP and extremist anti-gun control radicals don't care about keeping the general public safe.

[YllwFvr]

44. Convicted of a felony bars you from owning guns

Being charged with one is different.

[Euromutt]

45. Those were arrests, not convictions

Good grief, did you even read past the subject line of my previous post?

And in case you missed it, it's been illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm (and for anyone to provide a firearm to someone whom they know or reasonably suspect to be a convicted felon or other prohibited person) anywhere on U.S. soil since the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 went into effect on October 22nd 1968.

Jeez, you just illustrated how people who state in opinion polls and elsewhere that they favor more stringent gun control laws all too often don't actually know what the current law even is.

[gejohnston]

50. IIRC it was the Federal Firearms Act of 1938

unless it applied only to violent felons and GCA68 made it applies to all felons. The one thing that GCA68 changed was the penalty. FFA38 felon in possession was a max of five years, while GCA68 made it a manditory min of five years.

[right2bfree]

64. Should be ten years at least. That would put lots of felons on notice.

[Straw Man]

65. Somehow I doubt it.

Should be ten years at least. That would put lots of felons on notice.

I work with convicted felons. They don't usually start counting the years until they're already behind bars.

[Euromutt]

68. That figures; no rational person commits a crime thinking he won't get away with it

It's why heavier sentencing and the death penalty don't have a deterrent effect: it doesn't matter how severe the penalty is if you figure you're not going to get caught or convicted anyway. What deters rational people from committing crime is if they gauge their chances of getting caught and convicted of being unacceptably high; the severity of the sentence is secondary to that.

[Euromutt]

67. You are entirely correct (and I stand corrected)

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 did indeed prohibit possession by anyone under indictment for, or convicted of a "crime of violence," and by anyone who was a "fugitive from justice" either fleeing prosecution for a crime of violence, or fleeing to avoid testifying in any trial involving felony charges. It also required firearms manufacturers, dealers and gunsmiths to acquire a Federal Firearms License, which at the time cost $1 per year, required dealers to maintain records of sales, and prohibited FFLs (though apparently not non-FFLs) from knowingly transferring a firearm to a prohibited person.

I wasn't fully aware of the erstwhile existence of the Federal Firearms Act, having been superseded by the Gun Control Act, so I cited 1968 because I definitely knew it had been illegal for a person convicted of a felony to possess a firearm.

[TPaine7]

31. You absolutely have a right to live alone. I also believe in your right not to live

with criminals--be they jaywalkers or occasional speeders--whether or not they have CCW permits.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Nope.

"I have a right to not live with criminals with concealed weapons permits"

- How would you prove this?

- I personally think that the "right to not live with criminals with concealed weapons permits" might be listed in the same founding documents that enumerate freedom FROM religion and the right to "peaceful surroundings".

[krispos42]

33. It's not an entitlement. Sorry.

And when "criminals" includes non-violent misdemeanors... oy.



Would you take similar restrictions on the right to vote? I.e., any conviction, no matter how small, voids your right to vote?

[right2bfree]

62. Darn right!!!!

[Straw Man]

66. I can see by your abundance of exclamation points...

...that you concur with jpak that anyone who has been arrested is a "criminal." This is an exciting concept in this tough economy: imagine all the money we could save on courthouses, judges' salaries, jury stipends, evidence collection and storage, the whole tedious nine yards. Just sweep 'em off the streets, straight into the penal colony...

Yup. Yup. Yer durn tootin'.

[right2bfree]

54. You can only have guns in your home, thats why permits are needed by the NRA types.

[petronius]

58. On what do you base that statement, exactly?

:shrug:

[Scuba]

5. Um, not to be too picky, but being arrested does not mean one has a criminal record...

"One man approved in March was arrested for criminal mischief in 1994, drunken driving in 1998, unauthorized use of a vehicle in 2000, possession of controlled substance in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007, possession of a stolen firearm in 2007 and telephone harassment in 2010, Pulkrabek said."



How many convictions? One would be too many for getting a gun permit.

[gravity556]

7. So why was the exemplar out wandering the street?

Stolen firearm conviction is a felony. So unless the PD is just rubber stamping shit, said exemplar shouldn't have a permit. Or he's been arrested and never convicted, which, letter of the law in mind, doesn't mean a thing.

[spin]

8. If he was never convicted, maybe the sheriff didn't like him ...

and just harassed the shit out of him.

[slackmaster]

15. And that is exactly what's wrong with may-issue systems.

People do get singled out and harassed by police on occasion.

[gejohnston]

13. One conviction would be a federal crime to possess a gun.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Not all of them.

But some of the ones listed, certainly.

[gejohnston]

28. I thought the law included all felonies

even Martha Stewart.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Drunk driving isn't necessarily a felony, for instance.

Your fifth DUI is a felony, in Washington State, for example.

Four mulligans I guess.

[Euromutt]

46. A misdemeanor conviction isn't exactly a "mulligan"

By the time you ratchet up that fifth violation, under RCW 46.61.5055 you're already have going to have spent at least 211 days in jail, assuming your BAC was under 0.15 every time.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Somehow it seems the career drunk drivers never do.

Spend that much time in jail, that is.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. I understand...

...the career criminals that: rob banks, run numbers, sell drugs...
At least they have a profit motive.

The career drunk drivers seem as if they are from another planet.

[ergot]

70. I can't help recalling that Rev Martin Luther King was arrested several times...

:shrug:

[petronius]

9. Looks like the journo's fingers got carried away: "shall carry"?

:)

[-..__...]

10. Seems like if they had a more egregious example to cite...

they would have pulled it out of their ass by now rather the person in question.

Cops are like that though... they simply despise it when some of their authority is taken away from them.

[slackmaster]

14. Tough shit, Sheriff Lonny. You lost a power to make arbitrary decisions. Get over it.

One man approved in March was arrested for criminal mischief in 1994, drunken driving in 1998, unauthorized use of a vehicle in 2000, possession of controlled substance in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007, possession of a stolen firearm in 2007 and telephone harassment in 2010, Pulkrabek said.

Here's news for the Sheriff: Arrests don't count for shit. Only convictions can be used to curtail a person's civil rights.

[DissedByBush]

24. He's missing his extra income

From people who could afford to pay him a bit on the side to approve their permits.

[lawodevolution]

18. I'm sure you can back this garbage up with real crime data showing that CHL holders are

more likely to commit crimes than the average person.

Otherwise it appears the control freak sheriff is acting out like a toddler because he can't control everyone.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Arrest != conviction.

Some of those are automatic federal disqualifiers, if convicted.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. what constitutes a criminal in Johnson County, Iowa . . .

and therefore not eligible for a gun permit . . .

wouldn't the Iowa forum be interested in this?

wouldn't it be fair to, at least, cross post to the Iowa forum?

:shrug:

[eqfan592]

35. If they are a criminal...

...and not eligible (in other words, if you have any of the things in your background that would prevent you from buying a gun in the first place, generally speaking) then the sheriffs office should not be issuing the permit. If they are, then they are in violation of the law. If, however, the people in question do not have such problems in their record, then they are eligible and the office should issue it.

Basically, this is a nonsense story from a man who is upset that he is no longer judge and jury when it comes to the issuance of permits.

[jpak]

25. Law abidin'

not

[Straw Man]

29. So you don't believe in the court system?

Arrest = guilt in your world? Smells like a police state to me.

[eqfan592]

34. "Police states are awesome!!!"

- quote attributed to jpak.

yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup

[right2bfree]

56. Yup. We can be safer when your guns are registered, by law.

[petronius]

57. How do you think firearms registration would improve public safety?

And, do you think registration is the most effective way to obtain that benefit, balanced against cost, privacy rights, and risk of abuse?

[Straw Man]

61. Please explain to me exactly how that would work.

Yup. We can be safer when your guns are registered, by law.

Are my guns putting you or anyone in jeopardy now? How would that jeopardy be removed if they were registered?

Aha, psyche! My guns are registered -- the handguns, at least -- because I live in a state that requires it. There, don't you feel safer? No? Why not?

A general question: What's with all this "yup" and "nope" shit? What's next? "Yer durn tootin'"?

[hack89]

71. Don't criminals ignore laws?

so I don't see your point.

[right2bfree]

55. Nope!

[gejohnston]

59. and you base this on what?

[eqfan592]

72. Ya know, if you actually bothered....

....to come back and check the replies to the garbage you post, you might actually learn something every now and then. Instead, you will continue to exist in a state of willful ignorance.

[jpak]

36. Sheriff: 20 percent of 2011 gun permits go to those with criminal records

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20110601/NEWS01/110601006/Sheriff-20-percent-2011-gun-permits-go-those-criminal-records?odyssey=nav%7Chead

One in five people permitted to carry guns in Johnson County since a new shall carry law went into effect in January have criminal records, Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said Wednesday.

One man approved in March was arrested for criminal mischief in 1994, drunken driving in 1998, unauthorized use of a vehicle in 2000, possession of controlled substance in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007, possession of a stolen firearm in 2007 and telephone harassment in 2010, Pulkrabek said.

“My biggest beef is they took all the discretion away from the sheriffs under the premise of wanting more law-abiding citizens to get permits, but what they’ve done is allowed more people who are criminal, non-law-abiding citizen to carry guns,” Pulkrabek said. “Clearly, this is someone who is not law abiding and clearly not someone I believe should have a gun permit.”

Johnson County issued 1,295 permits in the first four months of 2011 compared to 552 in all of 2010, the sheriff told members of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, which was conducting an annual site visit of the sheriff’s office on Thursday. Of those who have received permits this year, 250 have a criminal record, Pulkrabek said.

<more>

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

38. kick

n/t

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Glassunion]

49. One thing you fail to realize.

You can be arrested 100 times and still not be a criminal. That's where convictions come in. Once convicted you are a criminal.

It would be interesting to know what crimes they are referring to those with criminal records. Technically pleading guilty to a misdemeanor could get you a criminal record even though you never spent a day in jail for it.

[gejohnston]

60. Interesting they were never convicted of anything

even slam dunks like being caught with stolen goods on them. Most of the time that is an easy plea bargain. DUIs I take it are not felonies in Iowa. The problem is all of that comes up in the background check for the permit, it tells me more about the sheriffs department than the shall issue system.

[Callisto32]

52. "we worry" "I think"...

I don't see a lot of "real problems" in there, chief.

Edit: This was supposed to respond to #1.

[Euromutt]

69. An enlightening read about why "may issue" sucks on multiple levels

"Delegating Discrimination: Why Discretionary Licensing Statutes Controlling Concealed Carry Weapons Permits Contravene the Rule of Law" by Robert Endorf (2007)
Available as .pdf here: http://works.bepress.com/robert_endorf/1/